Audio: Crystal Palace manager Ian Holloway says loan situation at Watford is 'wrong'
8:00am Saturday 9th February 2013 in Latest Sport
By Frank Smith, Deputy Group Sports Editor
Pictures: Action Images
Crystal Palace manager Ian Holloway has not hiden his displeasure at Watford being able to sign ten loan players from Udinese in the summer.
The Palace boss said that whilst the Hornets were not breaking any rules, he believes “it is wrong”.
English clubs are only able to loan two players from the same club and Holloway claimed the current rules mean Watford are not operating on a fair playing field.
Below are two parts of Holloway’s post-match press conference from last night, where he discussed his views on Watford’s current situation regarding loan signings.
Comments(113)
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
8:21am Sat 9 Feb 13
c'wood
says...
8:33am Sat 9 Feb 13
I wonder if he really thinks it is wrong for us have a fantastic foreign player like Vydra but that it's OK for Southampton to bid and possibly buy the same fantastic and foreign Vydra? This is the club that built an fantastic ground and then went bankrupt leaving people like St John's Ambulance unpaid. (Leicester are another fine example of this type of club we have to compete with.)
Watford never left debts like that, even after ITV Digtial, Vialli etc. We have never had an owner like Forest had who put apparently put in £100m before he died either. We are simply trying to compete as best we can against bigger budgets and with clubs who have acted a lot less scrupulously.
Oh, and we had two academy players start last night plus one on the bench. That suggests we are not killing English talent. We are merely making it better by surrounding the best of it with great foreign talent that raises the overall level.
Maybe it's all a smokescreen to cover for the rather obviously pre-planned rota to kick Chalobah out of the match.
Managers really do not talk straight do they?
mattymashup
says...
8:47am Sat 9 Feb 13
It would not surprise me to see palace taken over by juventus, hull taken over by real Madrid etc, then I don't think Holloway and co would be moaning about it!
The fact is we have gone from relegation favourites to a top championship team all because of the udinese connection.
Not that I'm complaining mind you.
It's just a shame we didn't sign them permanently in the transfer window, would have shut Holloway up!
P.s Holloway is still one of my fave managers, well done to you and palace, got a point from a game you should have lost, no sour grapes from me.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
8:47am Sat 9 Feb 13
c'wood wrote:Yes, agreed. I am not necessarily they are right but the rules are the same for everyone. Why didn't he exploit them as well then? We may have the advantage that it only needs one phone call instead of several but that's all.
A rather confused, jealous and slightly xenophobic ramble from Holloway. "I'm not having a go" "Zola is fantastic" etc. "....but if we don't stop it they will do really well" was the gist of it. Add in "my local boys" (well one of them is Welsh but that's appears to be the same thing!) and you see how confused it is.
I wonder if he really thinks it is wrong for us have a fantastic foreign player like Vydra but that it's OK for Southampton to bid and possibly buy the same fantastic and foreign Vydra? This is the club that built an fantastic ground and then went bankrupt leaving people like St John's Ambulance unpaid. (Leicester are another fine example of this type of club we have to compete with.)
Watford never left debts like that, even after ITV Digtial, Vialli etc. We have never had an owner like Forest had who put apparently put in £100m before he died either. We are simply trying to compete as best we can against bigger budgets and with clubs who have acted a lot less scrupulously.
Oh, and we had two academy players start last night plus one on the bench. That suggests we are not killing English talent. We are merely making it better by surrounding the best of it with great foreign talent that raises the overall level.
Maybe it's all a smokescreen to cover for the rather obviously pre-planned rota to kick Chalobah out of the match.
Managers really do not talk straight do they?
It annoys me when clubs get taken over by completely out of touch mega-rich mafia men or oil sheikhs who either want to hide money or want clubs as trophies, who don't care one jot about running it like a business and can lose a £100 million without even blinking, giving them a gob-smackingly unfair advantage and we can't field an extra 4 loan players than Holloway!
onlyonerodthomas
says...
8:51am Sat 9 Feb 13
mimiperena
says...
8:51am Sat 9 Feb 13
napoleorn
says...
8:54am Sat 9 Feb 13
He hasn't achieved anything as either a player or manager and shown a distinct lack of class with his comments last night.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
9:00am Sat 9 Feb 13
onlyonerodthomas wrote:Quite, I had forgotten about all that....
is this the same man that fielded an under strength team for blackpool against villa? which was "AGAINST" the premiership rules.and is this the same man that said if blackpool were found guilty and fined would resign his position from manager of blackpool?.you have to love holloway because he is funny and does have a weird sense of humour,but what he needs to know is that wfc are not breaking any rules and if palace were the first team to take advantage of this he would have done it too.maybe his mate warnock will pipe up with some witty bu77sh1t about our situation as well.
I agree, can't stand either Holloway or Warnock but the volume always gets turned up when they are interviewed!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
9:07am Sat 9 Feb 13
Right down in the gutter with Warnock now in my opinion, still fuming!!
The BestTrip2011
says...
9:12am Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:When it suits you Ollie, when it suits you. "I'm from Bristol"...yes, well.
onlyonerodthomas wrote:Quite, I had forgotten about all that....
is this the same man that fielded an under strength team for blackpool against villa? which was "AGAINST" the premiership rules.and is this the same man that said if blackpool were found guilty and fined would resign his position from manager of blackpool?.you have to love holloway because he is funny and does have a weird sense of humour,but what he needs to know is that wfc are not breaking any rules and if palace were the first team to take advantage of this he would have done it too.maybe his mate warnock will pipe up with some witty bu77sh1t about our situation as well.
I agree, can't stand either Holloway or Warnock but the volume always gets turned up when they are interviewed!
Travelling Hornet
says...
9:19am Sat 9 Feb 13
stevyweavy
says...
9:42am Sat 9 Feb 13
wfclegends
says...
9:46am Sat 9 Feb 13
However those scenarios dont really play into the same situations for "foreign" loans when taken from teams outside of the domestic leagues when playing in the English leagues.
No doubt this is why there are different rules and no doubt that to ensure that the loan system is fairer for all your little outburst will probably nullify that.
Oh P.S. Mr Holloway, which club was it that brought your equalising scorer of K Philips into professional football?
Watford FC
Its not all about youth development but recognizing talent when you see it.
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
9:49am Sat 9 Feb 13
Zola has done a fantastic job, we have done nothing unfair and people like that prat can carry on moaning but we are playing the better football and going up
Watforddogs
says...
9:55am Sat 9 Feb 13
stevyweavy wrote:No they aren't so don't brown nose the twit
His comments are totally reasonable and we would all be saying it if the boot was on the other foot. Maybe the way he said it was not. I love what we are doing and the way we are playing but it does not make it fair. The loophole should be closed (but hopefully after we get where we want to be and have the players we want permanently signed).
If Udinese had made them free transfers and permanent from day 1 knowing that could transfer them back at anytime as they have control and they had paid us a development fee to cover the wages - would that have been better?
Or if Pozzo had reached into his pocket givenus 10m and then made us buy the players for 10m from Udinese and then taken a 10m loan back from them - would that be different?
All Pozzos have done is to saddle us with players rather than debt (Chelski or Man City - albeit that debt is with the owner)
So don't appease Gollum - there is nothing wrong - the reason it is different with domesic loans is potential conflict of interest - we are unlikely to draw Granada in the cup or have to play Siena in a league game where Udinese will benefit from Siena losing are we!
wfclegends
says...
10:00am Sat 9 Feb 13
In actual fact we do play like a foreign team, like you say we do, but we are also gelling in the youngsters.
In actual fact if you had read the whole matchday program and read about our academy you will realise the Watford way is to introduce this style of football throughout all the academy teams. Clubs like Watford and Swansea will start establishing players through to the National team that can play a passing game and start to be competitive with the Spaniards etc at a different style of football from the Bristolian Hoof ball tactics your accustomed to which has won England squat for the past 50 odd years..
BigRussMalta
says...
10:11am Sat 9 Feb 13
Bush Hornet
says...
10:22am Sat 9 Feb 13
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:Well said.
Fair?? Loophole??? It's not like the rules have suddenly changed and we have exploited them, anyone could have done this anytime. The fact is we only signed all these players on loan innitually because of our poor financial state and to get them all in the door for Zola to look at. Most of them were unknown and hadn't done anything previously.
Zola has done a fantastic job, we have done nothing unfair and people like that prat can carry on moaning but we are playing the better football and going up
I haven't listened to Hollowhead's interview because he's just too irritating.
Mjp99
says...
10:22am Sat 9 Feb 13
Bush Hornet
says...
10:25am Sat 9 Feb 13
napoleorn wrote:Good summary. He loves the limelight but he's a limited manager.
I've never understood why he's apparently so highly thought of. Personaly, i've aways thought that he's a half wit that thinks he's a manager come stand up comedian..
He hasn't achieved anything as either a player or manager and shown a distinct lack of class with his comments last night.
gloryhornet4
says...
10:28am Sat 9 Feb 13
stevyweavy wrote:I take the view WFC would be a Premier side established or yoyo, like WBA if rich foreigners were not buying trophies & filling up the top half of the Prem Lg so there are less spots for genuine clubs with genuine supporters in the top flight.
His comments are totally reasonable and we would all be saying it if the boot was on the other foot. Maybe the way he said it was not. I love what we are doing and the way we are playing but it does not make it fair. The loophole should be closed (but hopefully after we get where we want to be and have the players we want permanently signed).
What is fair also by clubs gambling with creditors money WITHOUT their consent to try to enjoy the big time.
One club springs to mind Ollie.
WFC are within the rules.
bigthunder
says...
10:31am Sat 9 Feb 13
also the man accussed by Ferguson at P'boro of constantly tapping up Boyd by ringing him every day , a player under contract !
just ask Leicester supporters about him man is a moron loves the sound of his own voice and was so ill informed thinking we could only play 5 loan players he was embarressed and spouts of this garbage , WFC have not broken any rules , you can only break a rule if there is one , there is not
Pete_The_Boy
says...
10:31am Sat 9 Feb 13
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
10:35am Sat 9 Feb 13
Watforddogs wrote:Well said!
stevyweavy wrote:No they aren't so don't brown nose the twit
His comments are totally reasonable and we would all be saying it if the boot was on the other foot. Maybe the way he said it was not. I love what we are doing and the way we are playing but it does not make it fair. The loophole should be closed (but hopefully after we get where we want to be and have the players we want permanently signed).
If Udinese had made them free transfers and permanent from day 1 knowing that could transfer them back at anytime as they have control and they had paid us a development fee to cover the wages - would that have been better?
Or if Pozzo had reached into his pocket givenus 10m and then made us buy the players for 10m from Udinese and then taken a 10m loan back from them - would that be different?
All Pozzos have done is to saddle us with players rather than debt (Chelski or Man City - albeit that debt is with the owner)
So don't appease Gollum - there is nothing wrong - the reason it is different with domesic loans is potential conflict of interest - we are unlikely to draw Granada in the cup or have to play Siena in a league game where Udinese will benefit from Siena losing are we!
Show me the loophole?
A loophole is an ambiguity in a system which manages to avoid the implied intent or rules of that system??
You show me anywhere that it states a club can not have more that a certain number of season long loans from a foreign country?
No? Thought not!
The bloke should think before he speaks and makes an utter fool of himself next time.
HunsburyHornet
says...
10:51am Sat 9 Feb 13
napoleorn wrote:Spot on mate. He's still mad at the fact we beat his Plymouth in the cup semi final all those years ago. That's about his level. (Sorry Plymouth).
I've never understood why he's apparently so highly thought of. Personaly, i've aways thought that he's a half wit that thinks he's a manager come stand up comedian..
He hasn't achieved anything as either a player or manager and shown a distinct lack of class with his comments last night.
holtonian
says...
10:54am Sat 9 Feb 13
Mjp99 wrote:Exactly.
Says a manager who sells a player to Utd , bags the money and guess what, the lads back on loan. How fair is that
dorothyparker12
says...
11:13am Sat 9 Feb 13
cliff46
says...
11:31am Sat 9 Feb 13
Holloway is Bristolian -- no need to say anymore than that!!
lutondown
says...
11:58am Sat 9 Feb 13
cliff46 wrote:Cliff, Zola would have only been positive about the gnome as GFZ is a gentleman, whereas Oily ( not misspelt) is a self adoring wanna be piddle poor comedian.
How was it that sky sports interviewed two palace players and the idiotic Holloway after the game, why no Zola interview?
Holloway is Bristolian -- no need to say anymore than that!!
I've never understood why Watford fans like him, for he's never liked us loanees or not.
Did anyone else see them little slithers of carrot zipping out if his twisted mouth when he talked?
Munchkin tool
Only 2 Ross Jenkins
says...
1:08pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet
says...
1:16pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Only 2 Ross Jenkins wrote:Yes, he says he's going to ring up Barcelona! I would love to eavesdrop on that one - "Who is this? Who, Crsytal who?"
On one hand he critisizes the fact we can have all these 'loans'. Then he says he's going to get his chairman to do the same thing. If he has only just realised what the rules are he can't be very bright. But by his own admission, he's from Bristol so I guess there is your answer.
Dr Johnny Fever
says...
1:36pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Maybe we should be like Manchester City and go out and buy any player we like, because we have more money than anyone else, know doubt you'd moan about that being un-fair too.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
1:41pm Sat 9 Feb 13
dorothyparker12 wrote:I know what you are saying in that Udinese are only a mid-table Serie A team but hold on....that is a little insulting to them! The way I see it is that by a quirk of fate we have acquired what have turned out to be "real players" as you put it. They were probably underestimated at Udinese, especially Abdi, and also Vydra who had not much earlier come out an injury period and probably had not been tested enough. It's like buying a second had sofa and finding £ 10 000 in it!
The man complains about the loans of a pocketful of reserve players who sat on the bench of Udinese. What if Udinese starts sending the real players
Holly68
says...
1:44pm Sat 9 Feb 13
watford1881
says...
1:45pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet
says...
1:46pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
Bearded George
says...
1:48pm Sat 9 Feb 13
mattymashup wrote:I think that doing a deal with a premiership club so that you sell them your best player and they immediately loan him back, whilst not being against the rules, is equally concerning if not more so. After all the Pozzi's own these players and therefore it is up to them where they play them. They are developing these players which should be applauded. After all we are not buying instant success like some clubs do.
Holloway has a point. We are not breaking any rules though, and even if the loan loophole was closed we could buy the udinese players for ten euro each if we wanted. Surely the rule where chairmen can own more than one club albeit in foreign countries is the problem.
It would not surprise me to see palace taken over by juventus, hull taken over by real Madrid etc, then I don't think Holloway and co would be moaning about it!
The fact is we have gone from relegation favourites to a top championship team all because of the udinese connection.
Not that I'm complaining mind you.
It's just a shame we didn't sign them permanently in the transfer window, would have shut Holloway up!
P.s Holloway is still one of my fave managers, well done to you and palace, got a point from a game you should have lost, no sour grapes from me.
lutondown
says...
2:12pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
peter10531089
says...
2:45pm Sat 9 Feb 13
The Pozzo's have invested in players developments and are playing within the rules (not loopholes please note) also the international loans are unlimited as there is not the same case of conflict of interests because neither the loaning or receiving club compete against each other - human or European rights have nothing to do with it!
Palace were excellent and their manager is very good but I think he is talking about stuff that he doesn't understand
Eastsussexhornet
says...
2:47pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
dorothyparker12
says...
2:48pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Only too glad to see Udinese players are doing well at Watford, especially Vydra who did not have too many chances to show his talent by us. Abdi is probably simply more suitable for the English football, as some other players may be more comfortable with the Spanish football. That is why I do not think any of them will ever come back.
a1derek
says...
3:04pm Sat 9 Feb 13
c'wood wrote:Spot on - well said that person.
A rather confused, jealous and slightly xenophobic ramble from Holloway. "I'm not having a go" "Zola is fantastic" etc. "....but if we don't stop it they will do really well" was the gist of it. Add in "my local boys" (well one of them is Welsh but that's appears to be the same thing!) and you see how confused it is.
I wonder if he really thinks it is wrong for us have a fantastic foreign player like Vydra but that it's OK for Southampton to bid and possibly buy the same fantastic and foreign Vydra? This is the club that built an fantastic ground and then went bankrupt leaving people like St John's Ambulance unpaid. (Leicester are another fine example of this type of club we have to compete with.)
Watford never left debts like that, even after ITV Digtial, Vialli etc. We have never had an owner like Forest had who put apparently put in £100m before he died either. We are simply trying to compete as best we can against bigger budgets and with clubs who have acted a lot less scrupulously.
Oh, and we had two academy players start last night plus one on the bench. That suggests we are not killing English talent. We are merely making it better by surrounding the best of it with great foreign talent that raises the overall level.
Maybe it's all a smokescreen to cover for the rather obviously pre-planned rota to kick Chalobah out of the match.
Managers really do not talk straight do they?
lutondown
says...
3:21pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
lutondown
says...
3:22pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
Eastsussexhornet
says...
3:54pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
lutondown
says...
3:57pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
KeithMercer
says...
4:00pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Boosey
says...
4:06pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:If we did have to play them again Holloway has done us a massive favour.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.Holly68 wrote: Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!I have just started salivating!!
OUR SUPPORT WOULD BE VERY LOUD!
lutondown
says...
4:06pm Sat 9 Feb 13
KeithMercer wrote:Think that may unfold very soon. Whisper being not just because of a few caravan dwelling South Londoners
LD why was Red Lion closed ?
Eastsussexhornet
says...
4:09pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
Bedshornet
says...
4:37pm Sat 9 Feb 13
jasonwatford
says...
5:05pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
6:04pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
lutondown
says...
6:05pm Sat 9 Feb 13
jasonwatford wrote:Yeah!
Leicester lost !!!! Holloway is a pub football team manager got lucky. SHUT your cakehole ollie and stick it
Mohandas
says...
7:30pm Sat 9 Feb 13
napoleorn wrote:Look Hull, Leicester and Boro all lost. We should done Palace to make it just sweet.
I've never understood why he's apparently so highly thought of. Personaly, i've aways thought that he's a half wit that thinks he's a manager come stand up comedian..
He hasn't achieved anything as either a player or manager and shown a distinct lack of class with his comments last night.
lutondown
says...
7:39pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Mohandas wrote:But we are looking healthy. Hull 4 games in 11 days. Wobbles everywhere. Look out for Blackburn.
napoleorn wrote:Look Hull, Leicester and Boro all lost. We should done Palace to make it just sweet.
I've never understood why he's apparently so highly thought of. Personaly, i've aways thought that he's a half wit that thinks he's a manager come stand up comedian..
He hasn't achieved anything as either a player or manager and shown a distinct lack of class with his comments last night.
Skully84
says...
8:23pm Sat 9 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
8:25pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Skully84 wrote:6 to our 7
As stoneyhornet said, how many loanees did Palace have?
Academy players on show? Us 4 them 2.
Stats Mr Holloway would not like publicised no doubt. Horrible thick bumpkin
Bully73
says...
9:59pm Sat 9 Feb 13
akureyri
says...
10:32pm Sat 9 Feb 13
I think he would not, and he would not think it wrong either.
stewbyhorn
says...
10:48pm Sat 9 Feb 13
kingofpop
says...
10:59pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Yardy
says...
12:43am Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There are now rules in place to stop clubs losing millions of pounds. It's called FFP. I don't have a problem with the Holloway rant, I think it's a reasonable argument. There are rules in place to prevent English clubs having too many loan players from another English club. I'm pretty sure there will be a similar change for European teams too. Especially if we get to the not nots.
c'wood wrote:Yes, agreed. I am not necessarily they are right but the rules are the same for everyone. Why didn't he exploit them as well then? We may have the advantage that it only needs one phone call instead of several but that's all.
A rather confused, jealous and slightly xenophobic ramble from Holloway. "I'm not having a go" "Zola is fantastic" etc. "....but if we don't stop it they will do really well" was the gist of it. Add in "my local boys" (well one of them is Welsh but that's appears to be the same thing!) and you see how confused it is.
I wonder if he really thinks it is wrong for us have a fantastic foreign player like Vydra but that it's OK for Southampton to bid and possibly buy the same fantastic and foreign Vydra? This is the club that built an fantastic ground and then went bankrupt leaving people like St John's Ambulance unpaid. (Leicester are another fine example of this type of club we have to compete with.)
Watford never left debts like that, even after ITV Digtial, Vialli etc. We have never had an owner like Forest had who put apparently put in £100m before he died either. We are simply trying to compete as best we can against bigger budgets and with clubs who have acted a lot less scrupulously.
Oh, and we had two academy players start last night plus one on the bench. That suggests we are not killing English talent. We are merely making it better by surrounding the best of it with great foreign talent that raises the overall level.
Maybe it's all a smokescreen to cover for the rather obviously pre-planned rota to kick Chalobah out of the match.
Managers really do not talk straight do they?
It annoys me when clubs get taken over by completely out of touch mega-rich mafia men or oil sheikhs who either want to hide money or want clubs as trophies, who don't care one jot about running it like a business and can lose a £100 million without even blinking, giving them a gob-smackingly unfair advantage and we can't field an extra 4 loan players than Holloway!
Yes Leicester did go into administration and benefited from it. But the FA quickly changed the rules to counter that.
If the rules don't change. I still think we'll see a very different team next season though.
The pozzo's completely overhauled their teams last from last season and I think we'll be no exception.
Bush Hornet
says...
1:06am Sun 10 Feb 13
Jamie McDougall
says...
1:12am Sun 10 Feb 13
server.co.uk/yoursay
/features/10218519.A
re_you_sure_Mr_Hollo
way_/
read my response to Holloway's comments on my blog.
Travelling Hornet
says...
9:30am Sun 10 Feb 13
No one has pointed out that Cardiff field a side made up entirely of players from one club.........Watford !
northofwatfordpete
says...
9:45am Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet
says...
11:13am Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:No. My musical tastes change depending on the mood I am in. When I am responding to your posts it is usually "The Road to Hell" by Chris Rea.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
Poppet Bear
says...
11:18am Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet
says...
11:27am Sun 10 Feb 13
Poppet Bear wrote:Precisely. All clubs must manage their affairs within the rules. We have done just that, unlike Crystal Palace when they were docked points for going into administration. I don't like this constant reference to "loopholes" either - there are no loopholes, their are rules, and we have complied with them.
I used to have a lot of time for I.H. but not any longer. He is just a whining, whingeing git. If a money rich Arab or Russian gave him millions of pounds to spend, he wouldn't complain, would he ? All that has happened at Watford is we have loaned the players instead of being given the money to buy them. No difference at all. Watford up, Palace out the top six.
lutondown
says...
12:49pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Yep dead right, anything that's seen as a beneficial aid is then a loophole? We are with in the rules, we are no less immoral than Palace and in fact have secured the future of several more homegrown players than they have this season.
Poppet Bear wrote:Precisely. All clubs must manage their affairs within the rules. We have done just that, unlike Crystal Palace when they were docked points for going into administration. I don't like this constant reference to "loopholes" either - there are no loopholes, their are rules, and we have complied with them.
I used to have a lot of time for I.H. but not any longer. He is just a whining, whingeing git. If a money rich Arab or Russian gave him millions of pounds to spend, he wouldn't complain, would he ? All that has happened at Watford is we have loaned the players instead of being given the money to buy them. No difference at all. Watford up, Palace out the top six.
I think our coach oozes class where the unfunny Hollowhead is just plain crass.
lutondown
says...
12:50pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Well I've yet to take you to the dark side of the moon, get your space helmet ready for the trip!
lutondown wrote:No. My musical tastes change depending on the mood I am in. When I am responding to your posts it is usually "The Road to Hell" by Chris Rea.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
Eastsussexhornet
says...
1:21pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Very cryptic, very poetical. Perhaps I have been understimating you. Rambling Rose, Dark Side of the Moon? You are also a lot older than I thought you were. I thought you were a school kid judging by your posts...
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Well I've yet to take you to the dark side of the moon, get your space helmet ready for the trip!
lutondown wrote:No. My musical tastes change depending on the mood I am in. When I am responding to your posts it is usually "The Road to Hell" by Chris Rea.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
Watford-James
says...
2:50pm Sun 10 Feb 13
JohnnyHornet
says...
2:53pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Football League loan rules
Maximum of five loan players (standard, emergency or youth) in a matchday squad
Maximum of four players under 23 and four over 23 on a standard loan in one season
Maximum of two players over 23 from the same club on a standard loan
Players signed on loan deals from abroad (including Scotland) are registered as transfers, not loans
JohnnyHornet
says...
3:02pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Holly68 wrote:He'd need sectioning if that happened.
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
JohnnyHornet
says...
3:11pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Only 2 Ross Jenkins wrote:Not having a go at Ross....but this is where the problem lies...THEY ARE NOT LOANS, they are 1 year international transfers, no loophole, no dodgy dealings all above board and legit.
On one hand he critisizes the fact we can have all these 'loans'. Then he says he's going to get his chairman to do the same thing. If he has only just realised what the rules are he can't be very bright. But by his own admission, he's from Bristol so I guess there is your answer.
lutondown
says...
3:26pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:And I thought you was president of Saga. Oh you are and very sanctimonious. Truce over
lutondown wrote:Very cryptic, very poetical. Perhaps I have been understimating you. Rambling Rose, Dark Side of the Moon? You are also a lot older than I thought you were. I thought you were a school kid judging by your posts...
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Well I've yet to take you to the dark side of the moon, get your space helmet ready for the trip!
lutondown wrote:No. My musical tastes change depending on the mood I am in. When I am responding to your posts it is usually "The Road to Hell" by Chris Rea.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
Eastsussexhornet
says...
4:50pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Oh come on! I was only just getting into it! Don't get like that. I thought you wanted to carry this on. I didn't even know there was a truce. Ok, I promise I won't be so rude in the future.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:And I thought you was president of Saga. Oh you are and very sanctimonious. Truce over
lutondown wrote:Very cryptic, very poetical. Perhaps I have been understimating you. Rambling Rose, Dark Side of the Moon? You are also a lot older than I thought you were. I thought you were a school kid judging by your posts...
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Well I've yet to take you to the dark side of the moon, get your space helmet ready for the trip!
lutondown wrote:No. My musical tastes change depending on the mood I am in. When I am responding to your posts it is usually "The Road to Hell" by Chris Rea.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:There you go again! Is your fav record rambling rose? Hee hee hee
lutondown wrote:Ok, fair enough, as long as it's banter and nothing else. I sailed close to wind with you once but, I would point out, I regretted it BEFORE the WO removed it - the first time it's happened to me - didn't know whether to be proud or ashamed.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Come on that'd be boring! Anyway I wouldn't know which one of your opinions I was agreeing or disagreeing to!
lutondown wrote:Glad to hear it. We have something in common then. I know it's amusing but why don't we stop this childish stuff and concentrate on what should be our mutual interest?
lutondown wrote:Oh and I'm always quite perky thank you.
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Just for you my old Grammar checker, just for you.
lutondown wrote:I wondered when you'd perk up again. The chip's still there I notice....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Knew it ESH has rabies, explains his posts.
Holly68 wrote:I have just started salivating!!
Imagine the fuss if we have to play him again in Play Offs or if we went up !!
I did actually concur with one of your posts earlier, you must of missed it.
And mate, half of me is banter! The other half, I'm still working out!
There you are, plenty of ammunition there! Anyway, Soccer Saturday now so you'll have a free run for an hour.....
llloydwithathirdl
says...
5:38pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Holloway has admittedly only just figured out what's going on (despite us being one of his biggest rivals), still doesn't actually understand it, moans like a drunk tramp anyway, then fields his own side full of loan players because he's a ****.
In comparison Malky was not only extremely knowledgable about what we are doing (even knew how much Udinese paid for Vydra), he said there is nothing wrong with it, then went on to talk about how good we are.
lutondown
says...
5:43pm Sun 10 Feb 13
llloydwithathirdl wrote:That's nice, still a pillaging pie eater.
Compare this clown's comments to Malky's on sky.
Holloway has admittedly only just figured out what's going on (despite us being one of his biggest rivals), still doesn't actually understand it, moans like a drunk tramp anyway, then fields his own side full of loan players because he's a ****.
In comparison Malky was not only extremely knowledgable about what we are doing (even knew how much Udinese paid for Vydra), he said there is nothing wrong with it, then went on to talk about how good we are.
Probably knows what Pozzo paid for Vydra after making a silly bid for him!
Eastsussexhornet
says...
5:49pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:I agree with you LD...
llloydwithathirdl wrote:That's nice, still a pillaging pie eater.
Compare this clown's comments to Malky's on sky.
Holloway has admittedly only just figured out what's going on (despite us being one of his biggest rivals), still doesn't actually understand it, moans like a drunk tramp anyway, then fields his own side full of loan players because he's a ****.
In comparison Malky was not only extremely knowledgable about what we are doing (even knew how much Udinese paid for Vydra), he said there is nothing wrong with it, then went on to talk about how good we are.
Probably knows what Pozzo paid for Vydra after making a silly bid for him!
WOReader
says...
5:55pm Sun 10 Feb 13
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
lutondown
says...
6:03pm Sun 10 Feb 13
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
llloydwithathirdl
says...
6:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13
You wouldn't see GFZ commenting on another club like that. No class. No brains.
lutondown
says...
6:11pm Sun 10 Feb 13
llloydwithathirdl wrote:Spot on. And very unfunny wannabe comedian.
There's a bit of Keegan's "I'd love it if we'd beat em" about it all. He's clearly rattled because he's worried we're gonna beat him to second place.
You wouldn't see GFZ commenting on another club like that. No class. No brains.
A male appendage
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
6:16pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
6:31pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
lutondown
says...
8:21pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
bushey tales
says...
9:01pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
9:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13
bushey tales wrote:How can it be a loop hole if it legit? I imagine your rubbing your hands at the prospect of a points deduction. Happily, I don't think it will happen and if it does it's because of your fallen hellish angel from Stanmore.
It IS a loophole, whether we choose to acknowledge the fact or not. Cleverly spotted by Duxbury (or whoever took the Business Plan to the Pozzo's in the first place) and brilliantly exploited. The loophole will be closed at a point, just as you'd hope the cynical Zaha ploy of 'selling and loaning back' (and what's to stop United loaning him back to Palace for the whole of next season as well?) will also be closed. Holloway and the others are clearly jealous as hell, but I do worry that the potential looming points deduction could be used as a strategic device to clip our wings. Hopefully not, but we'll hear very soon.
gilesy97
says...
10:43pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
11:12pm Sun 10 Feb 13
gilesy97 wrote:Sorry, rubbish. Everyone buys their success to some degree. You pinpoint Blackburn, whose chairman Jack Walker a life long fan spent money realising his dream, yet omit Man City, Chelsea etc both bought by foreign wealth.
It's a loophole as much as the Starbucks loophole in not paying tax ( or all their tax) in this country. Within the law ,but upsetting everyone that doesn't benefit from it. Hopefully this loophole will be closed by next season , as I certainly don't want to see other clubs " palling up " with foreign clubs and loaning 11 players each etc.Let's be honest , if we do go up .it'll be know "outside of Watford " as tainted ..just like Blackburn buying the Premiership title a few years back...but I suppose at least their players were signed on for Blackburn.:) Still most Watford fans won't care , as winning is more important , than how it actually is achieved ..like most football fans .The Zaha loophole should be closed too...and of course Butland at Birmingham/Stoke ..so Holloway isn't the only manager doing it !!!
So why should smaller clubs like us be penalised when the so called bigger clubs can do as they please?
If we were languishing near the bottom of the league no one would take issue, so in my eyes this is all about envy.
I would pose to you, what would you rather have manage your club a Bas or a Pozzo? This our chance to secure our clubs immediate future and I for one embrace it, I don't think we had a future had the Italians not rescued us.
I would say, we will have to put up from a lot of sniping from other clubs as we progress, but lets not swell their numbers with our own so called fans.
gilesy97
says...
11:26pm Sun 10 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Agree with adding Man City & Chelsea to the list.
gilesy97 wrote:Sorry, rubbish. Everyone buys their success to some degree. You pinpoint Blackburn, whose chairman Jack Walker a life long fan spent money realising his dream, yet omit Man City, Chelsea etc both bought by foreign wealth.
It's a loophole as much as the Starbucks loophole in not paying tax ( or all their tax) in this country. Within the law ,but upsetting everyone that doesn't benefit from it. Hopefully this loophole will be closed by next season , as I certainly don't want to see other clubs " palling up " with foreign clubs and loaning 11 players each etc.Let's be honest , if we do go up .it'll be know "outside of Watford " as tainted ..just like Blackburn buying the Premiership title a few years back...but I suppose at least their players were signed on for Blackburn.:) Still most Watford fans won't care , as winning is more important , than how it actually is achieved ..like most football fans .The Zaha loophole should be closed too...and of course Butland at Birmingham/Stoke ..so Holloway isn't the only manager doing it !!!
So why should smaller clubs like us be penalised when the so called bigger clubs can do as they please?
If we were languishing near the bottom of the league no one would take issue, so in my eyes this is all about envy.
I would pose to you, what would you rather have manage your club a Bas or a Pozzo? This our chance to secure our clubs immediate future and I for one embrace it, I don't think we had a future had the Italians not rescued us.
I would say, we will have to put up from a lot of sniping from other clubs as we progress, but lets not swell their numbers with our own so called fans.
I put it that if we were languishing at the bottom of the league our attitude to the loans would be different.
We do have a great chance of securing our immediate future and for that we should be grateful....but I do hope we sign these players after this transitional season , and can call the team "ours" as opposed to a loaned bunch from somewhere else. Interesting that we didn't sign "the four" players , after being told by the owners that we would ..especially as one ( to my knowledge) wasn't offered a contract . I would feel a lot happier if we weren't engulfed by another ten loans from Udinese again at the start of next season whatever division we're in.
Bush Hornet
says...
12:03am Mon 11 Feb 13
gilesy97 wrote:Gilesy, maybe your point about the loans not being made permanent is valid. I agree it'd have been better to get them on Watford contracts. But only because it'd give the ignorant and envious less ammunition.
lutondown wrote:Agree with adding Man City & Chelsea to the list.
gilesy97 wrote:Sorry, rubbish. Everyone buys their success to some degree. You pinpoint Blackburn, whose chairman Jack Walker a life long fan spent money realising his dream, yet omit Man City, Chelsea etc both bought by foreign wealth.
It's a loophole as much as the Starbucks loophole in not paying tax ( or all their tax) in this country. Within the law ,but upsetting everyone that doesn't benefit from it. Hopefully this loophole will be closed by next season , as I certainly don't want to see other clubs " palling up " with foreign clubs and loaning 11 players each etc.Let's be honest , if we do go up .it'll be know "outside of Watford " as tainted ..just like Blackburn buying the Premiership title a few years back...but I suppose at least their players were signed on for Blackburn.:) Still most Watford fans won't care , as winning is more important , than how it actually is achieved ..like most football fans .The Zaha loophole should be closed too...and of course Butland at Birmingham/Stoke ..so Holloway isn't the only manager doing it !!!
So why should smaller clubs like us be penalised when the so called bigger clubs can do as they please?
If we were languishing near the bottom of the league no one would take issue, so in my eyes this is all about envy.
I would pose to you, what would you rather have manage your club a Bas or a Pozzo? This our chance to secure our clubs immediate future and I for one embrace it, I don't think we had a future had the Italians not rescued us.
I would say, we will have to put up from a lot of sniping from other clubs as we progress, but lets not swell their numbers with our own so called fans.
I put it that if we were languishing at the bottom of the league our attitude to the loans would be different.
We do have a great chance of securing our immediate future and for that we should be grateful....but I do hope we sign these players after this transitional season , and can call the team "ours" as opposed to a loaned bunch from somewhere else. Interesting that we didn't sign "the four" players , after being told by the owners that we would ..especially as one ( to my knowledge) wasn't offered a contract . I would feel a lot happier if we weren't engulfed by another ten loans from Udinese again at the start of next season whatever division we're in.
BUT... Starbucks? They're a global giant who cynically avoid paying their dues out of pure greed. We are Watford. A small club in comparison to the giants out there. The big players are ManU, Chelski, MCity, Real Madrid, Barca etc etc. They are Starbucks or Costa. They have dubious integrity and infinite greed. We are part of a small band of small clubs (udinese, granada) who invest in young talent and sell it on.
And Blackburn of the Jack Walker years? Nah mate. Our model is SO different from all that. It's better and more sustainable.
Don't believe what the haters say.
And I'd say to anyone who wants to admire Ian Hollowhead and somehow agree with his pathetic rant: Don't. Be. Stupid.
He is VERY stupid, but he does have a motive.
Travelling Hornet
says...
9:07am Mon 11 Feb 13
If this changes then it'll have to come from FIFA not the FA , then there is all the implications of EU regulations reguarding free movement of labour within Europe. Won't happen .
Wasn't there the same noises in Spain from the El Holloways over there when Granada were marching through the divisions with the help of the Pozzos ?
What happened about the 'loophole' absolouty NOTHING!
Eastsussexhornet
says...
9:14am Mon 11 Feb 13
bushey tales wrote:5 loan players are allowed within the UK (England?) and 9 if they are from outside of the UK leagues. Is there anything ambiguous there? Anything not clear? Anything that could be misunderstood? Not for me there isn't? Why is that a loophole?
It IS a loophole, whether we choose to acknowledge the fact or not. Cleverly spotted by Duxbury (or whoever took the Business Plan to the Pozzo's in the first place) and brilliantly exploited. The loophole will be closed at a point, just as you'd hope the cynical Zaha ploy of 'selling and loaning back' (and what's to stop United loaning him back to Palace for the whole of next season as well?) will also be closed. Holloway and the others are clearly jealous as hell, but I do worry that the potential looming points deduction could be used as a strategic device to clip our wings. Hopefully not, but we'll hear very soon.
Eastsussexhornet
says...
9:25am Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Pleasure. I'm glad you appreciate my immense worldly knowledge!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
lutondown
says...
10:46am Mon 11 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Absolutely right. In a nutshell. Today ESH you are a cup of coffee, I rebuke my Ovaltine remark.
bushey tales wrote:5 loan players are allowed within the UK (England?) and 9 if they are from outside of the UK leagues. Is there anything ambiguous there? Anything not clear? Anything that could be misunderstood? Not for me there isn't? Why is that a loophole?
It IS a loophole, whether we choose to acknowledge the fact or not. Cleverly spotted by Duxbury (or whoever took the Business Plan to the Pozzo's in the first place) and brilliantly exploited. The loophole will be closed at a point, just as you'd hope the cynical Zaha ploy of 'selling and loaning back' (and what's to stop United loaning him back to Palace for the whole of next season as well?) will also be closed. Holloway and the others are clearly jealous as hell, but I do worry that the potential looming points deduction could be used as a strategic device to clip our wings. Hopefully not, but we'll hear very soon.
;-)
lutondown
says...
10:47am Mon 11 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:I appreciate your ever so worldly typo even more! Sort of makes you human...well maybe a little bit!
lutondown wrote:Pleasure. I'm glad you appreciate my immense worldly knowledge!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
Eastsussexhornet
says...
10:49am Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Thank you. And on that note, I will now have one...
Eastsussexhornet wrote:Absolutely right. In a nutshell. Today ESH you are a cup of coffee, I rebuke my Ovaltine remark.
bushey tales wrote:5 loan players are allowed within the UK (England?) and 9 if they are from outside of the UK leagues. Is there anything ambiguous there? Anything not clear? Anything that could be misunderstood? Not for me there isn't? Why is that a loophole?
It IS a loophole, whether we choose to acknowledge the fact or not. Cleverly spotted by Duxbury (or whoever took the Business Plan to the Pozzo's in the first place) and brilliantly exploited. The loophole will be closed at a point, just as you'd hope the cynical Zaha ploy of 'selling and loaning back' (and what's to stop United loaning him back to Palace for the whole of next season as well?) will also be closed. Holloway and the others are clearly jealous as hell, but I do worry that the potential looming points deduction could be used as a strategic device to clip our wings. Hopefully not, but we'll hear very soon.
;-)
Eastsussexhornet
says...
10:54am Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:Not a typo....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:I appreciate your ever so worldly typo even more! Sort of makes you human...well maybe a little bit!
lutondown wrote:Pleasure. I'm glad you appreciate my immense worldly knowledge!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
Many definitions of worldly but I particularly like this one, I don't know why...
Experienced in human affairs; sophisticated or worldly-wise: "an experienced and worldly man"
lutondown
says...
10:57am Mon 11 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet wrote:No won't have that, you just don't get out enough! Simples
lutondown wrote:Not a typo....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:I appreciate your ever so worldly typo even more! Sort of makes you human...well maybe a little bit!
lutondown wrote:Pleasure. I'm glad you appreciate my immense worldly knowledge!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
Many definitions of worldly but I particularly like this one, I don't know why...
Experienced in human affairs; sophisticated or worldly-wise: "an experienced and worldly man"
Eastsussexhornet
says...
11:01am Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown wrote:....if only you knew!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:No won't have that, you just don't get out enough! Simples
lutondown wrote:Not a typo....
Eastsussexhornet wrote:I appreciate your ever so worldly typo even more! Sort of makes you human...well maybe a little bit!
lutondown wrote:Pleasure. I'm glad you appreciate my immense worldly knowledge!
Eastsussexhornet wrote:The tas situation is unknown to me too ESH, but I thank you for your in depth monologue, you work better than Ovaltine!
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny wrote:I haven't heard of this eother but I suspect it is something to do with this.
lutondown wrote:Who decides open market value?? A player is only worth how much someone will pay for him. Don't think that's an issue at all.
WOReader wrote:Open market value? Never heard that one before, how does that explain free transfers? Just asking
Holloway's comments are junk. Watford are complying with the rules and whether players are owned by Udinese or Watford is purely cosmetic. Holloway's comments appear to me to be an attempt at mischief making and an indication about how worried he is by the superiority of Watford.
I am not certain, but I do wonder that if players have to be transferred from Udinese to Watford, wouldn't they have to be transferred at open market value for tax purposes? If so that might be a disincentive and a potential problem if the rules change.
The only issue is the tax payable and tax is only payable on profits. There is profit at the selling end, and then profit at the UK end at some time in the future. So whilst I don't think the value the Pozzos put on players matters in isolation, it is the tax implications in Italy (say) and the UK that they would consider before putting the value on the player(s), or to be more specific, the tax differential. Since I don't know what the tas situation is in Italy, I wouldn't know whether it is better to over value or under value them.
And I'm sure as king of Grammar and spelling you did mean tax!!!
;-)
Many definitions of worldly but I particularly like this one, I don't know why...
Experienced in human affairs; sophisticated or worldly-wise: "an experienced and worldly man"
mkhornet
says...
11:11am Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
11:18am Mon 11 Feb 13
mkhornet wrote:Or didn't get cast in bad Elf?
Holloway hasn't been the same since he gave up presenting "Crystal Maze!"
bushey tales
says...
1:10pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Ronny oh Ronny Ronny
says...
1:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13
bushey tales wrote:Yes but there is no 'system', nothing to be implied by the way it is now as nothing to suggest it can't happen whatsoever, no intent into season long foreign loans, therefore no loophole.
Just to be clear.......a loophole is completely legit. That's the point. Wikipedia (yes, I know, the lavatory wall of the internet, but it's easily available) defines it as 'an ambiguity in a system which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.' So I repeat, Duxbury and Co have identified and cleverly exploited a loophole. No misunderstanding, no confusion, no illegality, nothing untoward ......just a loophole.
This has been going on for years anyway, Manchester United have been sending players over to Antwerp for god knows how long, who cares!
We should all be getting behind the team and the Pozzo's and if we do meet Hollowhead in the playoffs (which I don't think is likely) god help him, as he has given us plenty of ammunition.
KeithMercer
says...
2:19pm Mon 11 Feb 13
lutondown
says...
3:01pm Mon 11 Feb 13
KeithMercer wrote:Apparently a few experts have been digging out Hollowtool for some of his own treatment.
Just been a good little piece on TalkSport with Jeff Peters their "Championship Expert" and must add fervent Leicester supporter. Talking about Hollowheads comments in a nutshell he said exactly what we have all been saying on hear and that the muppet was probably trying to deflect from his poor record over the last 15 games of which he has only won 3(ok he didnt call him a muppet but we know what he was thinking)
I agree he took over a well managed side, and are they starting to hiccup? His career is varied in result to say the least.
Little man syndrome, no, ugly little man syndrome.
Bush Hornet
says...
3:44pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Eastsussexhornet
says...
5:04pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Bush Hornet wrote:It would probably go..."Ooooooh aarrrrh".
if I meet him one day I'd like to tap his empty head and find out what sound it makes
stewbyhorn says...
8:10am Sat 9 Feb 13
It's a shame because I thought he was better than that but obviously he's not, as he says if the boot was on the other foot he would love it, what a mug!